Death of OTA Broadcasting

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 07:20:25 -0700, Richard C. wrote:

I want a NEW in-the-box 5th generation OTA only ATSC unit.

I already have two, but my original one is flakey.

So search shopping for of of the models you have. I had no problem finding
hundreds of new ATSC STB's for sale. I don't know if they have the 5th gen
tuner chip as most manufactures don't list the internal parts. You will
have to research that.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm

"Gonzo" wrote:

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that.

No... no you are not alone

And that's the reason I've dumped cable and will only
watch OTA broadcasts

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:17:36 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
. ..

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like you I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that people get free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to keep ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month for 300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by staying home to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one TV addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What else can
you buy for this price?

Do I detect some sarcasm? FYI, I do not drive an SUV and I am not made out
of money.

Honestly, do I have to have a reason and justification to want to save
money? Are you retired? If not then deep six the attitude until you are in
my shoes.

Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever heard of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will however
change in the digital age.

You keep your cable and satelite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month. Hell I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay alive.
How's that for justification?

And why the hell would you care what Im going to do? So deep six the
attitude man. Christ, who are you, Sumner Restone maybe?


There's nothing wrong with you choosing to use OTA but tell me now,
You don't seriously think you should be able to get cable or satellite
free do you?

They simply are not the same product as OTA.
Thumper

And I disagree with you as to what the affect of using a decent
modulation would have on "incentives" to invest in OTA would be. If the
US, can't speak for Canada, had a decent modulation, I believe that
there would have been successful OTA ventures that by now would have
changed the dynamics of OTA broadcasting away from a dependence on must
carry on cable and toward a business model in which cable was denied OTA
content by broadcasters who would want to keep the content for
themselves.

LOL! That's rich. Oh yeah, I'm sure every 70 year old grandma and
soccer mom goes around saying "You know, if we only had a decent
modulation scheme, I'd jump right into an OTA receiver!". I guess
they'll just have to hope there's no clock to set on the damn thing,
otherwise it'll flash 12:00.

Thanks for a great laugh.

Larry Bud wrote:
And I disagree with you as to what the affect of using a decent
modulation would have on "incentives" to invest in OTA would be. If the
US, can't speak for Canada, had a decent modulation, I believe that
there would have been successful OTA ventures that by now would have
changed the dynamics of OTA broadcasting away from a dependence on must
carry on cable and toward a business model in which cable was denied OTA
content by broadcasters who would want to keep the content for
themselves.

LOL! That's rich. Oh yeah, I'm sure every 70 year old grandma and
soccer mom goes around saying "You know, if we only had a decent
modulation scheme, I'd jump right into an OTA receiver!". I guess
they'll just have to hope there's no clock to set on the damn thing,
otherwise it'll flash 12:00.

Thanks for a great laugh.

Well they are doing it in other countries. Don't know about grandmothers
but millions are buying OTA receivers either stand alone or in HDTV
sets. DTV OTA HD and SD is booming in many other countries.

The UK 13 million receivers sold in three years in a nation of 26
million households.

Japan, 13 million receivers sold, most integrated HDTV sets, in a nation
of 35 million households. Italy is doing very well as is France that has
seen millions of OTA receivers sold in just the last year plus.

And in these countries retailers are advertising, broadcasters are
advertising, everyone is on board. Why the modulation stupid! These
countries have one that works.

Here are comments being made today by US broadcasters about 8-VSB, the
US modulation that has been failing since 1998.

START FROM THE BOTTOM TO FOLLOW THESE POST
THEY INCLUDE A POST BY RICHARD BOGNER WHO BUILT A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF THE
BROADCAST ANTENNAS BEING USED IN THE US TODAY, NAT OSTROFF OF SINCLAIR,
PAUL BROYLES OF IBN.


August 4, 2006

Last night, Nat Ostroff responded to my posting of yesterday concerning
the need for changes to the ATSC standards. Although Mr. Ostroff's
response was addressed to both the CBA loop and the LPTV group, neither
forum posted his comments.

As all of you probably know, Mr. Ostroff is a preeminent engineer and
broadcasting executive and has served as President and CEO of two of the
leading transmitter manufacturers. In 1993, he was awarded a Prime Time
Emmy Award for outstanding engineering achievement for the development
of new UHF transmitter technologies.

Mr. Ostroff's comments are forwarded herewith.

Paul

________________________________
Paul J. Broyles, President
International Broadcasting Network
Houston, Texas 77269-1111



-----Original Message-----
From: ]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 7:29 PM
To: IBN; ;
Cc: ; ;
Subject: [cbaloop] 8-VSB


Your comments are right to the point. 8VSB has proven to be a poison
pill for Broadcasters. Just witness the flight of capital from the medium.
Today, many broadcasters are searching for a way to get out of the
business in one piece. The lack of a viable over the air service in
digital is a death warrant for the industry. Of course, Broadcasters
have no-one to blame but themselves. When there was a chance to focus on
ease of reception with small antennas and portable and mobile services
the industry, as represented by NAB and MSTV, made it clear that getting
something approved on schedule was more important than what was
approved. In fact, the official line during those days was " American
Broadcasters are NOT interested in mobile services." This was a direct
statement, made in my presence to several foreign delegations
investigating 8VSB for their country. They wanted to
know why 8VSB was not able to deliver mobile capability. Well, today the
"inconvenient truth" is that the Broadcast Industry is in trouble and
needs a system that works. AVSB may not be up to COFDM but it may be our
last great hope for some over the air business in the future.

Nat Ostroff


----- Original Message -----
From: "IBN"
To: ;
Cc: ; ;
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:58 PM
Subject: [cbaloop] 8-VSB


August 3, 2006

I concur with Dick Bogner that 8-VSB, in its present form, is a
disaster. Years ago, when the FCC was considering 8-VSB, I predicted
it would be a disaster, and IBN filed comments to that effect in a
number of rulemaking proceedings.

I also concur that it is exceedingly important that converter boxes be
required to pass through analog television signals without degradation
and be capable of receiving advanced digital signals.

It is vitally important to all television broadcasters, whether low
power or full power, that changes be made to the ATSC standards. The
essential changes include the following:

1. A-VSB must be adopted.

2. MPEG-4 must replace MPEG-2.

Additionally, there must be a requirement that converter boxes and
televisions be easily upgradeable as further improvements are made in
the modulation scheme and compression algorithms. The European
Union's
requirements for upgradeability may be an appropriate model for the
United States to follow.

Although COFDM may be better in some ways than A-VSB, it is much too
late to switch to COFDM. A-VSB offers substantial improvement over
8-VSB, and it does not make current DTV receivers obsolete.

Paul
________________________________
Paul J. Broyles, President
International Broadcasting Network
Houston, Texas 77269-1111



-----Original Message-----
From: ] On
Behalf
Of
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:48 PM
To:
Cc: ; ;
Subject: [cbaloop] 8-VSB

"URGENT URGENT
The reason that the FCC, Broadcasters, and the world do not yet know
that 8-VSB digital modulation is a disaster is simply that only the
economic middle and upper levels are receiving DTV, and they all have
cable/sat. In early 2009 when many millions try to get reliable
multichannel network reception over the air will the reality become
suddenly and disasterously clear!! The full powers don't really care,
even if they knew, because they get most revenue from the
upper economic groups, and they can wait for A-VSB to gradually take over-
BUT WE, WHETHER CLASS A,B OR Z, CANNOT.
IT IS URGENT THAT WE CONVINCE NTIA TO NOT ONLY REQUIRE THE NEW
CONVERTER BOXES TO PASS NTSC WHEN OFF, BUT TO REQUIRE THAT
THEY ACCEPT A-VSB, which we can then broadcast."

AND AGAIN MY COMMENTS...

These cries of pain will grow as the transition date nears. And remember
either MPEG4 or A-VSB are incompatible with all current 8-VSB receivers
or those that will be produced by MANDATE/subsidy/or are integrated
UNTIL either MPEG4 and/or A-VSB are adopted.

And A-VSB is at least three years away. Fat chance.

Bob Miller

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Bob Miller wrote:
DTV OTA HD and SD is booming in many other countries.

DTV OTA HD is booming only in the USA. The USA is the only country with
OTA HDTV available nationwide.

But Psycho Bob does not want to admit that.

The UK 13 million receivers sold in three years in a nation of 26 million
households.

There is no HDTV in the UK.

SD DTV in the UK is a big improvement over analog PAL. But it's not HDTV.

But Psycho Bob does not want to admit that.

Japan, 13 million receivers sold, most integrated HDTV sets, in a nation of
35 million households.

As in the USA, most Japanese use satellite or cable, including virtually
all HDTV viewers.

Hardly anyone watches the experimental OTA digital HDTV in Japan; and for
that matter most Japanese can't even receive it. If you live in downtown
Tokyo, you can get the signal, but not in the residential areas (such as
Kodaira, a mere 15 miles from downtown).

But Psycho Bob does not want to admit that.

Italy is doing very well as is France that has seen millions of OTA
receivers sold in just the last year plus.

There is no OTV HDTV in continental Europe.

But Psycho Bob does not want to admit that.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:17:36 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
.. .

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like you I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that people get
free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to keep ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month for 300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by staying home
to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one TV
addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What else
can
you buy for this price?

Do I detect some sarcasm? FYI, I do not drive an SUV and I am not made
out
of money.

Honestly, do I have to have a reason and justification to want to save
money? Are you retired? If not then deep six the attitude until you are
in
my shoes.

Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever heard
of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will however
change in the digital age.

You keep your cable and satelite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month. Hell I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay alive.
How's that for justification?

And why the hell would you care what Im going to do? So deep six the
attitude man. Christ, who are you, Sumner Restone maybe?


There's nothing wrong with you choosing to use OTA but tell me now,
You don't seriously think you should be able to get cable or satellite
free do you?

They simply are not the same product as OTA.
Thumper

Mr. Thumper, you might want to brush up your reading comprehension skills my
friend.

I never said they should be free.

What I said was:

A)OTA digital will be free as mandated by the U.S. Government and I will
benefit from that.

and

B)OTA analog used to be free as advertising paid for it instead of the
consumer.

And yes, I think OTA digital should be free. And it will be free. It
always has been and should continue to be so.

Feel free to cut and paste my quotes if it makes you feel better.

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:34:01 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:17:36 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
. ..

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like you I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that people get
free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to keep ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month for 300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by staying home
to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one TV
addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What else
can
you buy for this price?

Do I detect some sarcasm? FYI, I do not drive an SUV and I am not made
out
of money.

Honestly, do I have to have a reason and justification to want to save
money? Are you retired? If not then deep six the attitude until you are
in
my shoes.

Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever heard
of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will however
change in the digital age.

You keep your cable and satelite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month. Hell I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay alive.
How's that for justification?

And why the hell would you care what Im going to do? So deep six the
attitude man. Christ, who are you, Sumner Restone maybe?


There's nothing wrong with you choosing to use OTA but tell me now,
You don't seriously think you should be able to get cable or satellite
free do you?

They simply are not the same product as OTA.
Thumper

Mr. Thumper, you might want to brush up your reading comprehension skills my
friend.

I never said they should be free.

What I said was:

A)OTA digital will be free as mandated by the U.S. Government and I will
benefit from that.

and

B)OTA analog used to be free as advertising paid for it instead of the
consumer.

And yes, I think OTA digital should be free. And it will be free. It
always has been and should continue to be so.

Feel free to cut and paste my quotes if it makes you feel better.

I'm sorry, wasn't this you?


Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.
You keep your cable and satellite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay
alive.How's that for justification?

I must have misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the fact
that you get commercials over cable and satellite.
Thumper

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
...

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like you I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that people get free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to keep ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month for 300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by staying home to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one TV addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What else can
you buy for this price?


I recently purchased a new 61 inch 1080p HDTV with the money I saved over
the last five years, by NOT subscribing to cable or satellite. That's a
better deal then 300 low resolution cable channels and nothing to watch.

"Thumper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:34:01 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Thumper" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:17:36 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
...

"Gonzo" wrote

Once I retire I will not by paying for satellite or cable. Like you
I
will use free OTA only. Screw all the money grabbers.

Well actually here North of the border there is a way that people get
free
HDTV, but not necessarily OTA. It's satellite piracy. There's a
thriving
market in bootleg dishes and software. It's surprisingly open on the
newsgroups. The satellite providers are constantly trying to keep
ahead.

But actually I don't see you're complaining about. $60 a month for 300
channels with excellent reception except a few hours a year of
thunderstorms? Save one tank of gas a month in your SUV by staying
home
to
watch TV and its paid for. Some TVs with multiple viewers or one TV
addict
can easily run 400+ hours a month. That's 15 cents an hour. What else
can
you buy for this price?

Do I detect some sarcasm? FYI, I do not drive an SUV and I am not made
out
of money.

Honestly, do I have to have a reason and justification to want to save
money? Are you retired? If not then deep six the attitude until you
are
in
my shoes.

Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard
of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will however
change in the digital age.

You keep your cable and satelite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month. Hell
I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay alive.
How's that for justification?

And why the hell would you care what Im going to do? So deep six the
attitude man. Christ, who are you, Sumner Restone maybe?


There's nothing wrong with you choosing to use OTA but tell me now,
You don't seriously think you should be able to get cable or satellite
free do you?

They simply are not the same product as OTA.
Thumper

Mr. Thumper, you might want to brush up your reading comprehension skills
my
friend.

I never said they should be free.

What I said was:

A)OTA digital will be free as mandated by the U.S. Government and I will
benefit from that.

and

B)OTA analog used to be free as advertising paid for it instead of the
consumer.

And yes, I think OTA digital should be free. And it will be free. It
always has been and should continue to be so.

Feel free to cut and paste my quotes if it makes you feel better.

I'm sorry, wasn't this you?


Once upon a time way back when, OTA TV broadcasting was (drumroll
please).....FREE! *GASP!*. And back in the 70s I have never, ever
heard of
anyones TV being fried by lightning. Were you even alive back then?

How was it paid for? Advertisement. Now we have to pay for TV and we
are
still force fed advertisments as well.

I guess Im the only one that sees something wrong with that. The
broadcasters are having their cake and eating it too. This will
however
change in the digital age.
You keep your cable and satellite bill and Ill keep my $60 a month.
Hell I
may need it to help pay for my $100+ pharmacy bill just to stay
alive.How's that for justification?

I must have misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the fact
that you get commercials over cable and satellite.
Thumper

What part of "OTA" did you not understand?